Articles
   
       
Pics/Video
       
Wake 101
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (ralph)      Join Date: Apr 2002       02-24-2019, 9:26 AM Reply   
I really like this guy, his Platform is to prepare for the changing nature of work coming due to automation and AI. Seems super smart, motivated by a desire to help people and is a big picture thinker. Very interesting guy, not very politicianry.

Here with Pakman:
https://youtu.be/DlGgO2sYXZA

With Sam Harris:
https://youtu.be/XHYYVM0rJAw

And recently with Rogan:
https://youtu.be/cTsEzmFamZ8
Old     (ralph)      Join Date: Apr 2002       03-16-2019, 2:51 AM Reply   
The Yangman has got over the threshold to make it to the first round of the debates. No here love the Yang? Not even W2W?
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas       03-23-2019, 10:28 PM Reply   
Yang and Buttiegeg would both be great to have in the debates. Unfortunately they will be crowded out by worthless chaff like Gillibrand.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       04-18-2019, 10:35 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesos View Post
Yang and Buttiegeg would both be great to have in the debates. Unfortunately they will be crowded out by worthless chaff like Gillibrand.
Still feeling this way, Wes?
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas       04-18-2019, 10:57 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Still feeling this way, Wes?
which part lol
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       04-18-2019, 10:58 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesos View Post
which part lol


Mayor Pete.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-24-2019, 5:07 AM Reply   
I like Yang, but Beto is my choice out of the candidates this far.
Old     (ralph)      Join Date: Apr 2002       03-24-2019, 10:32 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
I like Yang, but Beto is my choice out of the candidates this far.
Beta O'Dork is long on style and short on substance. Personally I think the US needs a technocrat in the Oval rather than another social media personality. Time to change the script.
Old     (wombat2wombat)      Join Date: Sep 2018       03-25-2019, 5:54 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
I like Yang, but Beto is my choice out of the candidates this far.
Of course he is. Robert Francis O’Rourke. No one has ever heard or seen anything like this candidate: a hyperactive limb-flailing imbecile, babbling compulsively in a torrent of extremist nonsense barely couched in comprehensible syntax. No idea is too stupid to be endorsed in terms of absolute finality: “If we do not abolish all fossil fuels within twelve years, everything on the planet will be dead. The scientists are 100 percent united on this. Just as Americans of the past had to fight at Normandy, we have to fight this now, and save our planet.”
Old     (jarrod)      Join Date: May 2003       04-11-2019, 8:58 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat2wombat View Post
Of course he is. Robert Francis O’Rourke. No one has ever heard or seen anything like this candidate: a hyperactive limb-flailing imbecile, babbling compulsively in a torrent of extremist nonsense barely couched in comprehensible syntax. No idea is too stupid to be endorsed in terms of absolute finality: “If we do not abolish all fossil fuels within twelve years, everything on the planet will be dead. The scientists are 100 percent united on this. Just as Americans of the past had to fight at Normandy, we have to fight this now, and save our planet.”
My thoughts exactly. This doesn't surprise me.
Old     (buffalow)      Join Date: Apr 2002       03-25-2019, 8:15 AM Reply   
I actually listened to an interview with Howard Schultz and he seems quite smart and very business minded. He dislikes things on both sides of the isle. He believes each of these important things like health care, illegal citizens should, be able to be resolved by smart men and women and look for resolution. The issue for him is that as an independent he has not chance. If he picks a party, then he has to give up half of the things he deems important. He is BIG on America and bringing back American jobs and fixing our Schools/Police/Fire and continue our military, so lots of things I like to hear.

I do think we need a business man in the oval office. I do believe that 2020 will go to Trump, but after that it is almost a lock that it will be a democrat. Might be good to hav an independent at some point, right?I know Trump is a business man, but just has too much baggage and craziness to really bring the two parties together.
Old     (wombat2wombat)      Join Date: Sep 2018       03-25-2019, 8:33 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by buffalow View Post
I actually listened to an interview with Howard Schultz and he seems quite smart and very business minded. He dislikes things on both sides of the isle. He believes each of these important things like health care, illegal citizens should, be able to be resolved by smart men and women and look for resolution. The issue for him is that as an independent he has not chance. If he picks a party, then he has to give up half of the things he deems important. He is BIG on America and bringing back American jobs and fixing our Schools/Police/Fire and continue our military, so lots of things I like to hear.

I do think we need a business man in the oval office. I do believe that 2020 will go to Trump, but after that it is almost a lock that it will be a democrat. Might be good to hav an independent at some point, right?I know Trump is a business man, but just has too much baggage and craziness to really bring the two parties together.
I think the Dems are fools to ignore Schultz & do so at their own peril. I'd vote for him
Old     (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004 Location: Tyler       03-26-2019, 1:33 PM Reply   
watching Andrew Yang on JRE. seems like a smart guy. this robotics/automation BS could bring some serious change to our economy and productivity. throw in his idea of everyone getting a "dividend" of $1000 per month, seems like Trumps next real opponent.
Old     (ralph)      Join Date: Apr 2002       04-09-2019, 12:05 PM Reply   
Yang has the balls to go on the daily wire with Shapiro:
https://youtu.be/-DHuRTvzMFw
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-11-2019, 12:42 PM Reply   
"a hyperactive limb-flailing imbecile, babbling compulsively in a torrent of extremist nonsense barely couched in comprehensible syntax."

Couldn't have coined a more precise description of Trump.
Old     (theloungelife)      Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Salt Lake City, UT       04-11-2019, 4:03 PM Reply   
I like Yang too. Donated to him already. As someone that works in data at a tech company, I really think AI/Automation is the elephant in the room for the next 10-20 years. If we're proactive and create good outcomes for all, it will greatly benefit the world. If we don't do anything, there are going to be a lot of people on the streets. It's not as simple as installing UBI, but I still like Yang's freedom dividend as a start.
Old     (rdlangston13)      Join Date: Feb 2011       04-12-2019, 3:31 AM Reply   
So Yang supports a $12,000 a year universal basic income for everyone. So that’s $2.4 trillion a year which is over half of the tax revenue we current take in. How is that supposed to work?
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       04-12-2019, 5:42 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdlangston13 View Post
So Yang supports a $12,000 a year universal basic income for everyone. So that’s $2.4 trillion a year which is over half of the tax revenue we current take in. How is that supposed to work?
According to his website:

How would we pay for Universal Basic Income?
It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding UBI by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value-Added Tax (VAT) of 10%. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.

A Value-Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value-Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent.

The means to pay for a Universal Basic Income will come from 4 sources:

1. Current spending. We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This reduces the cost of Universal Basic Income because people already receiving benefits would have a choice but would be ineligible to receive the full $1,000 in addition to current benefits.

2. A VAT. Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone. A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue. A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.

3. New revenue. Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy would grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $500 – 600 billion in new revenue from economic growth and activity.

4. We currently spend over one trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200 billion as people would take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional. Universal Basic Income would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up. Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.
Old     (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004 Location: Tyler       04-12-2019, 10:32 AM Reply   
What's the PC word for welfare? Human services or some BS? anyway, it's a broken system and needs a revamp. I just don't see how handing essentially everyone $1000 per month as the solution.
Is he not just buying votes? I heard very little of what he said other than 1000/pp/month....
Old     (ralph)      Join Date: Apr 2002       04-12-2019, 10:55 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverd1 View Post
I heard very little of what he said other than 1000/pp/month....
Possibly why you can't understand the principle.....
Old     (DeltaHoosier)      Join Date: Mar 2018       04-12-2019, 11:01 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
According to his website:

How would we pay for Universal Basic Income?
It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding UBI by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value-Added Tax (VAT) of 10%. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.

A Value-Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value-Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent.

The means to pay for a Universal Basic Income will come from 4 sources:

1. Current spending. We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This reduces the cost of Universal Basic Income because people already receiving benefits would have a choice but would be ineligible to receive the full $1,000 in addition to current benefits.

2. A VAT. Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone. A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue. A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.

3. New revenue. Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy would grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $500 – 600 billion in new revenue from economic growth and activity.

4. We currently spend over one trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200 billion as people would take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional. Universal Basic Income would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up. Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.
Line 4 is BS.

Anytime I see or hear "paying their fare share", I automatically think that a 8 year old wrote it.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       04-12-2019, 6:13 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier View Post
Line 4 is BS.



Anytime I see or hear "paying their fare share", I automatically think that a 8 year old wrote it.


Do you think the author is 8 because they can’t spell fair?

Are taxes exactly fair right now?
Old     (bass10after)      Join Date: Feb 2010       04-12-2019, 9:05 PM Reply   
everyones in favor of any bracket but their own being raised blows my mind. We all should be saying enough is enough. Take from this group to give to that group is peanuts compared to whats taken from everyone collectively. The middle man is keeping the biggest cut, and its apparent that the robin hood mentality has not, nor will it ever work.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       04-13-2019, 7:42 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by bass10after View Post
everyones in favor of any bracket but their own being raised blows my mind. We all should be saying enough is enough. Take from this group to give to that group is peanuts compared to whats taken from everyone collectively. The middle man is keeping the biggest cut, and its apparent that the robin hood mentality has not, nor will it ever work.
so taxes should be zero? No schools, no highways, no police, no courts, no jails, no military, no fire department?
Old     (ralph)      Join Date: Apr 2002       04-13-2019, 8:59 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
so taxes should be zero? No schools, no highways, no police, no courts, no jails, no military, no fire department?
Right wingers: We need more police, jails and cruise missiles.
Also right wingers: Tax is theft!
Lol.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       04-14-2019, 6:54 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralph View Post
Right wingers: We need more police, jails and cruise missiles.
Also right wingers: Tax is theft!
Lol.
The thing everybody seems to say is that taxes are unfair (whether too high for me or too low for "them") The thing nobody (of any political stripe) seems to be able to say is when taxes are "just right."
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-15-2019, 7:01 AM Reply   
Can we assume if the deficit is back on it's way up in the "best economy in history" that they are too low?
Old     (rdlangston13)      Join Date: Feb 2011       04-15-2019, 8:22 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Can we assume if the deficit is back on it's way up in the "best economy in history" that they are too low?


I’ll disagree here and say that spending is too high.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-15-2019, 9:26 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdlangston13 View Post
I’ll disagree here and say that spending is too high.
So we can agree that taxes are too low for the current level of spending. Right?
Old     (DealsGapCobra)      Join Date: May 2010       04-16-2019, 4:30 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
So we can agree that taxes are too low for the current level of spending. Right?


How about spending is too high for the current level of taxes?
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       04-16-2019, 8:43 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DealsGapCobra View Post
How about spending is too high for the current level of taxes?
tastes great / less filling
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-16-2019, 9:57 AM Reply   
Either way the same. But we can all agree (assuming we are capable of reading graphs) that in our lives pretty much during all Republican Presidents the govt raises deficit spending and during Democrat Presidents the govt lowers it.
Old     (DeltaHoosier)      Join Date: Mar 2018       04-16-2019, 10:57 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Either way the same. But we can all agree (assuming we are capable of reading graphs) that in our lives pretty much during all Republican Presidents the govt raises deficit spending and during Democrat Presidents the govt lowers it.
Depends who is in charge of congress and what is driving the economy. During Clinton we had a Republican congress but we also had unpresidented foreign investment in all things internet. Lots of money to capture.

Bush we had continued spending on the housing bubble where everyone was pulling money out of the properties fake value then it all burst. Also a war to pay for. We also had a mostly democrat congress at that time

During Obama, there was never a new budget passed. It was almost all continuing resolutions until the deal was made for the automatic sequestration which cut 10%.

Point is, not sure I can make an absolute case. The president does not pass a budget. I don't believe congress has used the presidents numbers ever cart blanche
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       04-16-2019, 1:59 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier View Post
Bush we had continued spending on the housing bubble where everyone was pulling money out of the properties fake value then it all burst. Also a war to pay for. We also had a mostly democrat congress at that time
I think you need to explain your definition of "mostly." Rs had house 2000-06. Senate was essentially 50/50 the whole time, with neither side ever amassing a fillabuster-proof majority.
Old     (DeltaHoosier)      Join Date: Mar 2018       04-16-2019, 2:04 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
I think you need to explain your definition of "mostly." Rs had house 2000-06. Senate was essentially 50/50 the whole time, with neither side ever amassing a fillabuster-proof majority.
Spending Bills start in the house. Senate they have to have a compromise. Presidents do not control the budget. They can veto it, however they do not have a vote as to what goes in the budget.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       04-16-2019, 3:43 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier View Post
Spending Bills start in the house. Senate they have to have a compromise. Presidents do not control the budget. They can veto it, however they do not have a vote as to what goes in the budget.

So for the eight years of the GWB presidency, two years of dem control of the house (06-08) means “mostly”?
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-16-2019, 1:26 PM Reply   
During Trump the Republicans raised deficit spending with zero excuses that you can attribute to the Democrats. Obama cut the deficit from well over a trillion to around 3/4 trillion. The Republicans are raising it back up to over a trillion after Obama lowered it, lowered unemployment and over doubled the stock market. Hard to wiggle out of that one. Point is.... Democrat President, deficit spending goes down. Republican President, deficit spending goes up. You can dance on the head of a pin all day with excuses, but those are the facts.
Old     (DeltaHoosier)      Join Date: Mar 2018       04-16-2019, 2:10 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
During Trump the Republicans raised deficit spending with zero excuses that you can attribute to the Democrats. Obama cut the deficit from well over a trillion to around 3/4 trillion. The Republicans are raising it back up to over a trillion after Obama lowered it, lowered unemployment and over doubled the stock market. Hard to wiggle out of that one. Point is.... Democrat President, deficit spending goes down. Republican President, deficit spending goes up. You can dance on the head of a pin all day with excuses, but those are the facts.
Presidents do not have input into the budget. They will ask for certain thing but they do not get to write the budget. For instance and I know this for a fact, Trump has asked for a greatly reduced budget in many areas but congress did not pass his requests along.

Obama - they did not pass a budget. They passed continuing resolutions.

Sometimes it is the luck of the draw on whether or not you are going to get a strong economy. Usually the policy changes you make take years to take hold. It is a big ship to make always statements.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-16-2019, 3:29 PM Reply   
Except when the historical evidence is "always". Then you can say "always" until it changes. I understand what you are saying. Except the America people think in terms of who's in the WH.

Heck Republicans imagine all kinds of things when a Democrats in the WH. They imagine the President as tax and spend even when he lowers taxes and spending as Obama did. Then they imagine Trump draining the swamp as he's filling it. They imagine Obama as a liar even though they only can think of one or two lies he told. Then when Trump entered office they imagined that lies no longer matter.

Americans imagine the US as a moral nation even though it's constantly at war and selling more weapons than any other nation in the world. They imagined that sending kids fresh out of high school to their deaths halfway around the world fighting for the independence of a country they wouldn't even want to live in as a noble cause. Just not noble enough to risk their own lives.

They imagine that Germany is declaring war on the US by taking over the internet under the influence of the Roman Empire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=EsSG9dNXLIE

And they imagine there is a magic man in the sky that will fix everything after they f**k up the planet with pollution and war.

But there is one thing you can always count on without having to imagine.... The GOP raising America's deficit spending.
Old     (DeltaHoosier)      Join Date: Mar 2018       04-16-2019, 4:31 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Except when the historical evidence is "always". Then you can say "always" until it changes. I understand what you are saying. Except the America people think in terms of who's in the WH.

Heck Republicans imagine all kinds of things when a Democrats in the WH. They imagine the President as tax and spend even when he lowers taxes and spending as Obama did. Then they imagine Trump draining the swamp as he's filling it. They imagine Obama as a liar even though they only can think of one or two lies he told. Then when Trump entered office they imagined that lies no longer matter.

Americans imagine the US as a moral nation even though it's constantly at war and selling more weapons than any other nation in the world. They imagined that sending kids fresh out of high school to their deaths halfway around the world fighting for the independence of a country they wouldn't even want to live in as a noble cause. Just not noble enough to risk their own lives.

They imagine that Germany is declaring war on the US by taking over the internet under the influence of the Roman Empire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=EsSG9dNXLIE

And they imagine there is a magic man in the sky that will fix everything after they f**k up the planet with pollution and war.

But there is one thing you can always count on without having to imagine.... The GOP raising America's deficit spending.
Obama did not such thing. They did not even pass a budget when he was in the White House so I don't know how he can get a credit for spending less.

Obama lied on a couple of big policy decisions that impacted millions. Trump says what he says but you guys only listen to him. I have not heard a single speech he has given because I know when a president is speaking, it is usually a sales pitch.

On draining a swamp? You believe that is why people voted for him? There are only so many people who know how to transition a government. You will never completely drain anything.

You think all war is immoral or just the ones you don't like?

I still don't know what you are going on about Germany and the Roman Empire. If you want a case for the Roman Empire, we certainly seem to be following in the same footsteps. Other than that, I don't know what you keep referencing.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-16-2019, 4:56 PM Reply   
That was on last weekends OTA TV Sunday morning religious programming. LOL! Just a nice current sample of the crazy stuff people imagine to be true.

I don't need to argue with you over the deficit being cut during the Obama administration. It's a matter of historical fact. But you can imagine otherwise.
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas       04-17-2019, 11:04 AM Reply   
So 4.5 years R to 3.5 years D? With most of the D years including two caucusing independents?
Old     (DeltaHoosier)      Join Date: Mar 2018       04-17-2019, 12:42 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesos View Post
So 4.5 years R to 3.5 years D? With most of the D years including two caucusing independents?
Even when the republicans had the numbers, the democrats had the independents that caucused with them. They only had 2 real years were they had actual Republican majority. Even then, they did not have 60 as to the rules of the Senate. Point is, there was no real agenda based politics able to get through.
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas       04-17-2019, 12:47 PM Reply   
No they had 4.5 years. The years where independents pushed the dems to 51 votes count as dem years. Duh. The highest imbalance in those years was repubs with 55.
Old     (DeltaHoosier)      Join Date: Mar 2018       04-17-2019, 1:26 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesos View Post
No they had 4.5 years. The years where independents pushed the dems to 51 votes count as dem years. Duh. The highest imbalance in those years was repubs with 55.
Yes, 2 years of an actual majority. The rest was nearly 50-50 usually 50-49. The last 2 years the democrats had the majority regardless of independents. Point is, they did not have enough to push straight agenda (democrats included) You needed 60 votes for that.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-18-2019, 10:06 AM Reply   
If you think Trump turned a million into a billion, then you could probably be tooled into believing anything.
Old     (DeltaHoosier)      Join Date: Mar 2018       04-18-2019, 10:26 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
If you think Trump turned a million into a billion, then you could probably be tooled into believing anything.
Everyone keeps touting that he got a million from his dad. a million to a billion is 1,000 times. 10 mill to a bil is 100 times.

How about this. Anyone in this room take $1000 and turn it into a million? Or even $100,000. Even a standard investment at age 30 by the time you hit 65 will only double 5 times with good historic returns for a grand total of 32,000 by letting it ride.

Not saying he is a genius but it takes a bit to get a 1,000 times return on investment. Could be wrong and that is why I am just a working stiff but seems impressive enough.
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas       04-18-2019, 10:41 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier View Post
Everyone keeps touting that he got a million from his dad. a million to a billion is 1,000 times. 10 mill to a bil is 100 times.

How about this. Anyone in this room take $1000 and turn it into a million? Or even $100,000. Even a standard investment at age 30 by the time you hit 65 will only double 5 times with good historic returns for a grand total of 32,000 by letting it ride.

Not saying he is a genius but it takes a bit to get a 1,000 times return on investment. Could be wrong and that is why I am just a working stiff but seems impressive enough.
I've turned zero into $3mil a year. But your premise is completely flawed, and comparing $1,000 to $1,000,000 without factoring in everything else (cost of living of your average joe with $1,000 vs. 1mil to a rich boy who already has millions in the bank from dad).

Little Don was a millionaire by age 8. And his dad actually "loaned" him closer to $60mil ($140 mil in today's dollars) - it wasn't paid back so it's a gift, not a loan. There's also the millions upon millions shifted to him and his sister later - don himself got roughly $413 mil (the sister recently retired to prevent a judicial inquiry following the NY times tax report) and - even more importantly - the fleet of daddy's lawyers at his disposal to lawnmower over all the small business he screwed over.

If he had simply stuck the money he was given in the s&p back then, he'd easily be worth over 2 bil today.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-18-2019, 11:05 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier View Post
Everyone keeps touting that he got a million from his dad. a million to a billion is 1,000 times. 10 mill to a bil is 100 times.

How about this. Anyone in this room take $1000 and turn it into a million? Or even $100,000. Even a standard investment at age 30 by the time you hit 65 will only double 5 times with good historic returns for a grand total of 32,000 by letting it ride.

Not saying he is a genius but it takes a bit to get a 1,000 times return on investment. Could be wrong and that is why I am just a working stiff but seems impressive enough.
Last report I heard is that he inherited $400M. Previous to that it was a $100M. Either way, you could have just put that money in the stock market and made a billion with zero effort over the past 40 years, without having to lie and cheat people out of their money along the way.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       04-18-2019, 11:08 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
without having to lie and cheat people out of their money along the way.
;-) let other people do it for you like the rest of us!
Old     (DeltaHoosier)      Join Date: Mar 2018       04-18-2019, 3:47 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Last report I heard is that he inherited $400M. Previous to that it was a $100M. Either way, you could have just put that money in the stock market and made a billion with zero effort over the past 40 years, without having to lie and cheat people out of their money along the way.
Last reports that I read for the last 2 years, he was colluding with Russia. Just can't tell about reports these days.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-18-2019, 5:58 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier View Post
Last reports that I read for the last 2 years, he was colluding with Russia. Just can't tell about reports these days.
But this is more about the credibility of claiming he inherited anything close to only a million.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       04-19-2019, 4:32 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier View Post
Last reports that I read for the last 2 years, he was colluding with Russia. Just can't tell about reports these days.
There seems to be some evidence of that in the Mueller report that was just released. You just refuse to believe any "report" that has anything negative about Trump.
Old     (95sn)      Join Date: Sep 2005       04-19-2019, 3:10 PM Reply   
Quote:
Uh huh. End of the day. No Collusion and no Obstruction.
'
FALSE.
You are parroting Barr. Its not called the Barr report. Read The Mueller Report and see if you agree with AG. The obstruction part, Vol II starts after page 199. The 1st page of it explains why there "was no obstruction" …..cant indict a sitting pres is the bottom line. Trump is dirty as they come.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       04-20-2019, 4:52 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by 95sn View Post
'
FALSE.
You are parroting Barr. Its not called the Barr report. Read The Mueller Report and see if you agree with AG. The obstruction part, Vol II starts after page 199. The 1st page of it explains why there "was no obstruction" …..cant indict a sitting pres is the bottom line. Trump is dirty as they come.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
He's delusional. Mueller could have videos of Putin handing Trump cash and Delta would argue that he did nothing wrong. That report is full of damning evidence on Trump and associates and Delta is proclaiming it's nothing. "No obstruction"? The report says the exact opposite.
Old     (ralph)      Join Date: Apr 2002       02-11-2020, 1:34 PM Reply   
Boooo. The Yang was a boss. Maybe he will be VP on the Bernie ticket.
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       02-13-2020, 9:41 AM Reply   
Quote:
probably go out and look for some guy to force his gay agenda on you.
lol lol lol lol
Attached Images
 
Old     (markj)      Join Date: Apr 2005       02-13-2020, 3:38 PM Reply   
I’m willing to bet 95sn is a mud farmer.
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       02-13-2020, 4:16 PM Reply   
Would Pete’s Husband/Wife be the First Man? We would go from Big Mike Obama to Mellina to “St Peters” Husband???? LOL LOL LOL. They referred to the large group of Republicans running in 2016 as the Clown Car. What would you call this demented Group of Democraps?

So speaking of other Retarded DemoCraps, Tom Styers & Bloomberg these guys are brain dead. Polling where 0.00% these fart sniffers are clueless. I wanna laugh in the face of these idiots when they announce all the money that they spent going NO WHERE doing NOTHING. And these 2 idiots are just gonna Waste more and more money as November gets closer.
Old     (markj)      Join Date: Apr 2005       02-13-2020, 4:51 PM Reply   
I think it’s great that that racist fool, Bloomberg is gonna part with his money for nothin. He a no good cracka.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 2:54 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2019 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us